English translation — בא ג

Sicha Gimmel, page 61

A.

In the verse "And it will be when your son asks you tomorrow saying, 'What is this?' and you shall say to him, 'With a strong hand did Hashem take us out of Egypt, etc.'"

(At the end of our parshah¹)

Rashi quotes the words "when your son asks you tomorrow" and explains: There is a "tomorrow" that is now, and there is a "tomorrow" that is after some time, such as this one, and such as "tomorrow your children will say to our children" of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuven

[stated in the book of Yehoshua²,

when they returned to the other side of the Jordan after the conquest and division³

of the land].

The source of this Rashi is

(apparently)

in the Mechilta here⁴,

and its wording: There is a "tomorrow" now and there is a "tomorrow" after a time,

what is this? Behold, "tomorrow after a time",

"tomorrow this sign will be"

[stated above⁵

in the plague of the mixture of wild beasts]

behold, "tomorrow" now,

"tomorrow your children will say to our children" behold, "tomorrow" after a time.

And behold, the reason that Rashi omitted the proof that "there is a 'tomorrow' now" from the verse "tomorrow this sign will be",

apparently it is

(as stated in the commentators⁶)

because Rashi does not need a proof that there is a "tomorrow" that is now,

for this is the simple interpretation of "tomorrow" in every place,

and furthermore,

that "the main point⁶

of the intention is to explain here 'tomorrow' that is after a time."

But based on this it is puzzling — why does Rashi bring this introduction

("There is a 'tomorrow' that is 'now'")

at all?

Behold, in this introduction there is no novelty,

and he should have said briefly "There is a 'tomorrow' that is after some time, such as this and such as etc."?

And to note that later in the portion of Va’etchanan⁷

on the verse "For your son will ask you tomorrow, saying, 'What are the testimonies etc.'",

Rashi wrote briefly "For your son will ask you tomorrow,

there is a 'tomorrow' that is after⁸

time",

without prefacing "There is a 'tomorrow' that is 'now'".

However, it can be said that there the novelty is the opposite — that there is a 'tomorrow' that is at a great distance of time,

after several generations,

until the matter of the Exodus from Egypt⁹ is forgotten

and they ask "What are the testimonies etc.".

2.

Also, one must be precise in Rashi's language in the proof he brings that "there is a 'tomorrow' that is after a time" — "such as 'tomorrow your children will say to our children' of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben" — for at first glance:

a)

In the overwhelming majority of proofs that Rashi brings for his words from a verse in Tanakh,

it is not his way to write in which continuation

(or in which matter)

the verse is stated, but rather he only copies the language of the text; and why does Rashi emphasize here that it is written<pg>62</pg>

This was said regarding "the children of Gad and the children of Reuben"<sup>10</sup>?

And it must be said that through this addition, explanation and understanding is added in the proof that "there is a tomorrow that is after time."

b)

What is Rashi's reason that he precedes "the children of Gad" to "the children of Reuben"<sup>11</sup>

— and behold Reuben is the firstborn?

And the wonder grows: Rashi reverses their order from how it is in the verses in Joshua

(from where his proof is<sup>12</sup>),

that the verse precedes in them — each time — the children of Reuben to the children of Gad!

3)

Why does Rashi bring the proof that "there is a 'tomorrow' that is after a time" from this verse

("of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben"),

and not from a verse stated earlier in the book of Joshua¹³

— "so that this may be a sign among you, when your children ask tomorrow, saying, 'What are these stones to you?'"?

And moreover: what is the need to bring him a "friend" from the Prophets — and there is an explicit verse in the Chumash,

in Parshat Va'etchanan,

as above — "when your son asks you tomorrow, saying, 'What are the testimonies etc.'"

(whose simple meaning is that the Exodus from Egypt had already been forgotten,

and as explained by Rashi there as above "there is a 'tomorrow' that is after a time"¹⁴).

[And even though this proof in Rashi's commentary is the same one brought in the Mechilta as above — still

(a)

also in the Mechilta, an explanation of the reason for the matter is needed,

(b)

it has been said many times that Rashi's purpose in his commentary on the Torah is not to transcribe the homilies of our Sages, but only when they are according to the simple meaning of the verse.

And it must be said that for understanding our verse,

it is necessary to bring the proof specifically from the verse of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben].

Also, one must understand why Rashi copies in the explanation of the word "also" the words "for your son will ask you",

even though

(seemingly)

he explains here only the word "tomorrow".

3.

And this will be understood by prefacing what was said many times about the way of Rashi in his commentary on the Torah — that his style in his commentary is a clear style,

so that to understand it there is no need for examination in understanding the sources of Rashi,

and it is even understood by a student who is only connected to understanding the simple meaning of Scripture,

which is — as the words of our Sages in their Mishnah¹⁵

— "a child of five for Scripture".

And from this it is understood,

that even when Rashi uses the language of the Sages,

his intention is for the simple meaning of this language and expression,

even though it is possible that this language is interpreted

(in its source)

in the Sages in a different manner.

And likewise in our matter: what Rashi said "there is a tomorrow that is now",

his intention is for the simple meaning of the word "now",

namely that there is a "tomorrow"

(which does not mean the day that comes after this day — rather that which comes after the event,

even though)

"that it is now" literally¹⁶,

immediately on this day.

For since it comes after the event that they are dealing with,

this is "tomorrow"¹⁷.

<pg>63</pg>

[And it can be said that this is the reason why Rashi did not bring the proof from the Mechilta to "there is a 'tomorrow' that is 'now'" from what is written "tomorrow this sign will be" — because in the Mechilta the intention of "now" is the day after it

(And it is called "now" relative to "tomorrow which is after a time"),

but in Rashi's commentary the intention is that "there is a 'tomorrow' that is 'now'" literally,

in the present,

and consequently the verse "tomorrow this sign will be" has no relevance here].

And according to this, the continuation of Rashi's words is explained: according to the usual interpretation of the word "tomorrow" — the day after this day — it is puzzling,

why would the son's question specifically be "tomorrow"?

If the son does not understand the reason for the commandment,

why does he not ask immediately at the time of the act,

today,

but rather waits until the next day¹⁸?

!

And therefore Rashi explains,

that "tomorrow" does not mean in every place literally — the day after today — because there are additional interpretations

(each one fitting the content of the verse,

the matter in which it is stated)

: "There is a 'tomorrow' that is now",

that is,

the time that comes immediately after the thing or the deed

(on that day)

— this is "after",

"tomorrow"¹⁷

; "and there is a 'tomorrow' that is after a time" — on a day of the days after it,

or years,

or future generations to come;

And Rashi continues "such as this and such as tomorrow your children will say to our children about the children of Gad etc.'",

namely that in our case,

the interpretation of the word "tomorrow" is

(not "now" but specifically)

— "after a time",

and as explained in the commentaries¹⁹,

that the son's question is not conceivable except "after a time",

"for

(if it is about a son of this time and period then)

he saw and knew the Exodus from Egypt and all the plagues and that the dough did not have time to leaven²⁰

but certainly tomorrow is after a time".

4.

And according to this, we must also explain why Rashi needed to preface "There is a 'tomorrow' that is now" — even though this is not the explanation of "tomorrow" in this verse — and in the introduction:

In addition to the above difficulty in this verse — how does the term "tomorrow" fit here,

there is also here a more general difficulty: what is the practical difference of this emphasis here,

that the son's question will be "tomorrow"?

And in particular,

that this content — the son's question — we already found above in the portion²¹,

"And it will be when you come to the land etc. and you will keep this service,

and it will be when your children say to you, 'What is this service to you?'

and you will say, 'It is a Passover sacrifice etc.'" — and there it is not stated that the son's question will be "tomorrow"; and why here does the verse emphasize that the son's question "what is this" will be "tomorrow"?

And one cannot answer that this name is understood by itself,

because the verse prefaces "And it will be when you come to the land etc.",

and consequently it is simple that it is not discussing the question of the son at the time of the Exodus from Egypt, but rather the question "after a time"

(when they come to the land)²²

And there is no need to write "tomorrow" — because here too it is explicit

(as an introduction to the question of the son)

"And it will be when<p>64</p>

the Lord brings you to the land of the Canaanite etc."²³,

and thus it is not discussing the question of the son in the generation of the Exodus from Egypt,

and the difficulty returns to its place — why does the verse add here the word "tomorrow"?

And it must be said that the intention of the verse in adding the word "tomorrow" is not to emphasize the time,

when the son's question will be

(now or later),

but rather to explain the reason for the question.

Explanation of the matter:

There is the question of "your son" whose cause is only — his being "your son",

that is,

his being a son who lacks learning and knowledge,

and therefore when he sees something whose reason he has not yet learned, he asks "what is this"

[except that in this itself there are several manners and levels,

and as Rashi brings here in the entry "afterwards" that "the Torah spoke corresponding to four sons,

the simple, the wicked, and the one who does not know to ask, and the one who asks in a wise way" — but the common denominator in all of them is,

that their questions come because they are sons,

who have not yet learned etc.].

And this is the emphasis and addition of the Torah here "when your son asks you tomorrow" — that the cause of this question is not only because of this that he is a son

(as the question above — "and it will be when your children say to you, what is this service to you"),

but mainly because the discussion is about "tomorrow"²⁴

: that being in a different time and in a different period²⁵

is what causes this question.

And as below section 6.

5.

Based on this, the reason is understood why Rashi was not satisfied to write briefly "tomorrow — after a time",

but rather elaborates in his commentary:

(a)

He prefaces "there is a 'tomorrow' that is now",

(b)

He brings a proof and example for "there is a 'tomorrow' that is after a time" from what is written in Joshua "tomorrow your children will say to our children",

(c)

He adds at the end of the proof "of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben":

The explanation of "there is a 'tomorrow' that is after a time" can be explained in two ways:

a)

Also according to this,

"tomorrow" is a concept and measure of time,

however this time is not limited specifically to the day following this day,

rather it includes every "tomorrow" day from days that will come in the future²⁶.

b)

"Tomorrow" is not a concept determined according to the order of times,

rather it depends on and relates to the subject being discussed,

that the time after this subject is called "tomorrow" relative to the present time²⁷,

according to which the intention in "after time" is not merely for the future in general,

but for a new period,

that comes after the conclusion of the present period.

And it can be said,

that according to Rashi's commentary here,

the description "tomorrow..

after time" is in the second sense — a completely new period

(and this is the reason for the son's question).

And therefore Rashi prefaces "there is a tomorrow that is now" — in order to prove that the word "tomorrow" can be interpreted not only as a measure of time,

but also in the sense of "afterward",

and in such a sense — "there is a tomorrow that is now" in the present

(and it is called "tomorrow" because it comes after the action)

; from this it is also understood regarding "there is a tomorrow that is after time" — that the intention is not only that it is a matter of the future

(in general),

but that it comes after

(the conclusion)

the present period.

&lt;pg&gt;65&lt;/pg&gt;

And therefore Rashi brought the proof from the verse "Tomorrow your children will say to our children, of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben" specifically

(And not from Parshat Va'etchanan "For your son will ask you tomorrow, saying, 'What are the testimonies...'"

or from what is written in Joshua "For your children will ask tomorrow, saying, 'What are these stones to you?'")

— because specifically in this verse it is most emphasized that this possibility of saying is only because they are in a completely new period — "your children will say to our children",

a new generation from both sides,

and only because of this can such a saying be possible²⁸.

And as understood from the simple meaning of the story in Joshua there,

that when the children of Gad and the children of Reuben returned to the other side of the Jordan,

after fulfilling their promise to Moses "And we²⁹

will be armed hastily before the children of Israel... until the children of Israel inherit each man his inheritance",

they erected an altar there,

and explained their reason to the rest of the children of Israel,

that this is "a witness..

between us and you and between our generations"³⁰,

that if "tomorrow³¹

your children will say to our children, saying, 'What have you to do with the Lord God of Israel,

and the Lord has set a border between us and you... the Jordan...'",

they will say "See³²

the pattern of the altar of the Lord which our fathers made...'" — and this concern,

that "the Lord has set a border between us and you",

has no place at all during all the days of that generation,

since the children of Gad and the children of Reuben actually sacrificed themselves for the rest of the children of Israel in order to give them their land as an inheritance.

And only in the generation after this,

when there are only "children" — "your children" and "our children",

then it is possible that the deeds of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben will be forgotten and it will arise in the mind that there is a "border" and a separation between them and the rest of Israel.

And with this is also explained the precision of Rashi,

who precedes "the sons of Gad" to "the sons of Reuben" — because even though Reuben is the firstborn and is generally mentioned before Gad,

nevertheless, in the matter of their self-sacrifice and their war for all of Israel,

the sons of Gad preceded the sons of Reuben

[and as Rashi brought³³

that the sons of Gad were mighty, "as it is said of Gad³⁴

he tears the arm, even the crown of the head",

and as explained elsewhere³⁵

that in the matter of war the sons of Reuben were secondary to the sons of Gad,

and therefore we find in many places the phrase "the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben",

which precedes the sons of Gad to the sons of Reuben]

— and this is the emphasis here,

that since the discussion is about "the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben" who sacrificed themselves for the rest of Israel,

therefore all the concern of "lest they say etc." applies only "tomorrow after a time" — after the rise of a new generation of sons who do not remember the deed of the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben,

as above.

<pg>66</pg>

6.

However, according to this, one must wonder,

what is the difference between the question of the sons above — "And it will be when your sons say to you, 'What is this service etc.'",

and the question here at the end of our portion "And it will be when your son asks you tomorrow, saying, 'What is this'",

that specifically here the reason for his question is — "tomorrow"

(being in a new period)?

And this can be explained simply — according to the distinction between the content of the questions:

The question above is regarding the Paschal sacrifice,

that earlier the Torah commanded³⁶

"And it will be when you come to the land etc. you shall keep this service"

(the bringing of the Paschal sacrifice),

And upon this the verse continues³⁷

"And it will be when your children say to you, 'What is this service etc.' you shall say, 'It is a Paschal sacrifice to the Lord, who passed over etc.'"; but here at the end of the section it speaks about the commandment of the firstborn³⁸,

as is explicit at its beginning³⁹

"And it will be when the Lord brings you to the land of the Canaanite etc. you shall set apart every first issue of the womb to the Lord, and every firstborn offspring of cattle etc. and every firstborn donkey you shall redeem with a lamb etc. and every firstborn human among your sons you shall redeem",

And upon this the verse continues⁴⁰

"And it will be when your son asks you tomorrow saying, 'What is this?' you shall say to him, 'With a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt etc. and the Lord killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt etc. therefore I sacrifice to the Lord every first issue of the womb, the males, and every firstborn of my sons I redeem'".

And based on this, the difference in the reason of the questions is also understood:

The matter of the Exodus from Egypt

(in general)

cannot be forgotten by the children of Israel⁴¹,

since every single day we mention and also do several matters "as a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt"⁴²,

and the question of "what is this service to you" on Passover night comes because the discussion is about a "son" who has not yet learned, etc.;

But regarding the mitzvah of the firstborn, there is a difference in which generation is being discussed: the generation of the Exodus from Egypt,

certainly knew and remembered the salvation of the firstborn among them,

and therefore when the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded⁴³

(on the fifteenth of Nisan)

"Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first issue of every womb among the children of Israel, etc., it is Mine" — as Rashi explains⁴³

"I acquired them by smiting the firstborn of Egypt" — there was no place for a question among them,

for they themselves were acquired to God,

by this that He saved them from death; and only when a new generation arises,

that was not in Egypt,

then among them the question regarding the mitzvah of the firstborn applies — "What is this",

and there is a need to explain to them,

because since "the Lord slew every firstborn in the land of Egypt, etc." — "therefore I sacrifice to the Lord every first issue of the womb, etc.".

7.

According to the above that here the discussion is about the mitzvah of the firstborn — one can say another reason that Rashi prefaces at the beginning of his commentary "There is a 'machar' that is now":<pg>67</pg>

On the verse⁴⁴

"And it will be, when the Lord brings you to the land of the Canaanite" Rashi says "There are some of our Sages⁴⁵

who learned from here that firstborns born in the desert were not sanctified,

and the one who says they were sanctified explains⁴⁶

this 'coming' to say: if you fulfill it in the desert, you will merit to enter the land and fulfill it there."

That is,

according to the first interpretation

(and the primary one)

the firstborns born in the desert were not sanctified⁴⁷

(And simply, Rashi's intention is only regarding those born in the desert,

but the firstborns who were in Egypt, according to its simple meaning, it is implied that they were sanctified⁴⁸,

as is explicit above: "Sanctify to Me every firstborn"

(without the condition "And it will be when the Lord brings you etc."),

and as is explicit in Rashi above: "I acquired them by smiting the firstborn of Egypt"⁴⁹)

; but there is a second interpretation that even those born in the desert were sanctified.

According to the second opinion it is difficult — why is the term "tomorrow" stated here,

for it is impossible to explain that the question is because they are in a new period,

for the period of their stay in the desert is not a new period

(really),

since the generation of the Exodus from Egypt was still alive and existing⁵⁰?

Therefore Rashi prefaces: "There is a 'tomorrow' that is 'now',"

and with this Rashi hints,

that according to the opinion that even the firstborns born in the desert were sanctified and the beginning of the commandment of the firstborn is not after they come to the land,

it is logical to explain "tomorrow" here — "a tomorrow that is now"⁵¹,

that when he sees that the father fulfills the commandment of the firstborn^*51,

he will ask immediately after this — "What is this"

(as above, section 3 in the explanation of "There is a 'tomorrow' that is 'now'").

8.

The meaning of the Torah in Rashi⁵²

:

In this Rashi — "There is a 'tomorrow' that is now and there is a 'tomorrow' that is after some time" — it can be said that it alludes to two types of "sons" who ask questions "tomorrow."

"Sons" of "tomorrow" are the children of the next generation,

and there are among them two manners: "There is a 'tomorrow' that is now" — he is indeed a son,

of the next generation,

but in the content of his essence, he lives and exists "now",

because he is not separated from his father,

rather he lives those same lives of the father,

the life of Judaism,

and constitutes a continuation

(but)

direct

("tomorrow")

of the father.

And in this there is no novelty,

for when this "son" asks questions in Judaism

(since he is still in the state of a son)

— one must endeavor to answer him so that he can serve G‑d with joy and vitality.

But — "there is a tomorrow that is after time",

a son such as this who has no connection and relation to the character of life of the father,

and he is from a "new period",

a new generation "that did not know Joseph"⁵³

; and it is understood that the type of "questions" of this "son",

are not<pg>68</pg>

only from lack of knowledge,

but rather the manner of life according to Torah and commandments with beautification etc. is a new and foreign thing to him and is not according to his spirit.

And this is the teaching of the Torah — the model of a "son" such as this,

since he is "your son",

behold this is your responsibility

(and your merit)

to answer the questions of this son,

and to bring him close under the wings of the Shechinah.

And by engaging with all types of sons of the people of Israel,

they establish the "hosts of the Lord"⁵⁴,

that they will merit very soon the true and complete redemption through our righteous Mashiach,

as in the days of your going out from the land of Egypt I will show him wonders⁵⁵,

and speedily in our days, literally.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Bo 5730)